/liberty/ - Liberty

>>73311

Non-sequitur. If all people have a right to some arbitrary amount of resources then scarcity must not exist in such a world. Otherwise, no. Property is not something we assume on a whim. It's a positive system that deals with conflict over the use of SCARCE means. There can be no coherent arbitration at all if available resources remain scarce yet the number of such entitled persons grows. Such a distribution is unworkable and is nothing more than pleading the impossible. For the birthright to the use of resources to remain consistent and applicable there must always be more land. Even in a world of infinite resources one would have to justify the arbitrary amount of resources they are entitled to and by what measure they are allowed to gain more, without it again being completely arbitrary.

>>73311

My thoughts are that people who post "thoughts?" without anything more substantial are fucking faggots who need to grow a fucking spine.

>>73311

i disagree with the last sentence

im for death sentence

>>73318

You are not exactly a moral role model either, you liar faggot.

>>73380

Jesus Christ, can people shut up about this already? No one would care if he hadn't decided to come out clean. You think he's the only person on the internet that lied? Take your self-righteous crap back to whatever board you masturbate to the thought of murdering kikes/kulaks on.

I wasn't aware that saying "thoughts?" might upset those who have none.

>>73381

Him feeling the need to blog about himself lying in his previous blogging about himself on an online anonymous anime image board is what makes it all the more worse

I wondered with Georgism how that whole land tax would be applied and who would distribute it. Seems like you'd need someone for that despite calling it anarchist/ libertarian or something.

>>73445

Yes, I got it, but your outrage is still juvenile. Find a self help group or something.

>>73311

George's argument is a non sequitur. From the fact that it isn't right to evict a person with nowhere to go into a body of water, it doesn't follow that everyone has an equal claim to every tract of land. His argument is already defused if everyone with no place to stay is given a right not to be evicted, but no ownership. Like a kind of rent contract with the terms decided by the landlord.

A right is a permission from the state

>>73500

based milkman of high foreheads

>>73449

Not the same guy. I just occasionally call him a fag.

>>73499

>If A, B, and C own all the toothbrushes, then D, E, F, and G will get gingivitis

>>73525

You can make more toothbrushes but not land

>>73528

You can actually make more land (Chicago did so after the Great Fire), and improve the land to allow people to own the vertical space above it.

>>73528

Both are scarce, so there's a limit to the quantity of each that can be owned at any given time. One having a higher supply or market value per unit than the other is secondary to the principles that govern both. "Taken to their logical conclusion" toothbrushes are the same as land, since the raw materials needed to make are limited. Bierce's "conclusion" would only be an issue if every property owner was a monopolistic miser at all times, an arrangement that would result in the collapse of all economic activity. Land ownership is not some special panacea for freedom. The first reply in the thread already explained why private property is germane to any scarce object.

>>73605

A right is a permission from the state

>>73612

Fuck off.

>>73617

Don't tell me what to do

>>73311

I'd prefer LVT over regular property tax due to the fact that it minimizes rents seeking effects, but George's blatant denial of the right to appropriate land is completely baseless. That all people have rights to use the earth for their sustenance does not imply that everyone has an equal claim to every specific piece of land. If I'm interpreting it correctly, the latter claim is rather bizarre.

I dont understand what makes land different from any other scarce resource to this man, but I am kind of interested in georgianism if even as just an oddball case, so I am willing to hear you out if you have a reason.

>>73636

Property comes either from you manufacturing it or somebody giving it to you (either in an exchange or as a gift); the two ideologies don't have any real difference there. However, that's not true of land, and the dispute is whether you can claim land simply because you got to it first. Georgism makes the claim that you can't and that if you're going to use land, you owe at least something to people who can't use it as long as you're there.

>>73674

>However, that's not true of land, and the dispute is whether you can claim land simply because you got to it first.

But we're not saying that you can. It's not about claiming land, it's about transforming it, by building on it or farming it, for example. Now, the Georgists would probably claim that the land itself was there before, but that's like saying that the wood you build a chair from was already there. If we think this through to its logical end, we must say that only the matter which we create from nothing is rightful property. I don't think many people would agree to such a proposition.

>Georgism makes the claim that you can't and that if you're going to use land, you owe at least something to people who can't use it as long as you're there.

Which is also wrong in itself. It makes sense, if we disregard the other problems of Georgism, among neighbors. Not so much when we extend the argumentation to a nation state or even globally. How am I withholding a tract of land from someone who lives a hundred kilometers over?

>>73674

>Georgism makes the claim that you can't and that if you're going to use land, you owe at least something to people who can't use it as long as you're there.

yes but what about land makes it different from other things to require this under georgianism?

>>73612

But that's wrong.

>>73676

Not actually a Georgist so I'm not certain what the response to that argument is, though I have heard some lumping all natural resources into that 'public heritage' category.

I'm curious though, if land ownership comes from land development you'd then say that it's impossible to own undeveloped land?

>>73676

To further support your argument most land is not difficult to aquire. People are not really displaced by land ownership. If raw land has value then you can get it practically for free from Alaska.

Even outside of Alaska the cost of land is little but has negative value to the average person because for it to be transformed into something useful to them would require more expense than its benefit, showing that it is the transformation that has value.

Most people don't own land because raw land has zero (practical) value, not because they are excluded from it.

>>73701

It's really not

>>73871

It is. Might makes right predates the state.

>>73898

"Might makes right" is a denial of rights, retard

>>73921

How so? In order to secure one's rights against tyranny, one must defend them.

>>73612

I thought that was a license?

>>73706

>I'm curious though, if land ownership comes from land development you'd then say that it's impossible to own undeveloped land?

As a general rule, yes. My intuition tells me that establishing any dominion over a specific tract should be enough, too, but the line between someone who fences in a rock formation or a small reservoir and someone who "homesteads" an entire continent is hard to draw. Hard, but not impossible. I've been meaning to look up the idea of dominion for a while now, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

>>73898

>>73921

>>73937

"Might makes right" is a bad joke. It's an expression born from a time in which people plain forgot how moral arguments work. That no one can actually act this idea out should give you pause to think. It takes a conscious effort not to express in speech that there are rights preceeding their own enforcement. In fact, the idea of enforcing a right is nonsensical if the enforcement itself creates a right to begin with.